Chariho School Parents’ Forum

December 11, 2008

Dec 9 part 2

In part 2, Andy Polouski asks if the attorney knows of any other person that has held two elected seats (as if personal experience sets law).  Gorham says he does not.  AP also says that the Committee cant vote on the issue and that it must be put on the Jan meeting – essentially, AP establishes the Committee’s intent – and as you will see in the other videos, his ‘plan’ actually does come true.  I wonder if Deb Carney was in on those strategy sessions or if AP just happened to guess what was going to happen.

DC also refutes the Chariho attorney on the Bailey v Burns case – and she points out that the Chariho Act does not give the Committee the authority to remove me and that if it was on the agenda for Nov 18th she would have studied and been prepared to correct the attorney – she also points out that on Nov 18 the issue was not on the agenda, but we voted on it – but now that it is on the agenda, we can’t vote on it.  DC makes a motion to put me back on.

Holly Eaves says that she agrees with AP, we allowed them to speak and that the Gorham letter is on the agenda but the act of recending our vote wasn’t on the agenda – so wasn’t going to accept this motion until the next meeting.’

So AP asks the Chariho attorney if he thinks they could vote on it – you can guess on his ‘legal opinion’ (isn’t this the same school that refused to allow me to speak with the attorney when the NEA filed a complaint against me?)


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: